Fair and equitable treatment (FET) is one of the most frequently invoked—and most litigated—standards in international investment law. It typically appears as a single clause in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investment chapters of free trade agreements, obliging each state party to accord investors and investments of the other party treatment that is "fair and equitable." Despite its brevity, the clause has generated a large body of arbitral jurisprudence under ICSID and UNCITRAL rules.
There is no single agreed definition. Tribunals have variously held that FET protects against:
- Denial of justice in domestic courts or administrative proceedings.
- Arbitrary, discriminatory, or grossly unfair conduct by state organs.
- Breach of the investor's legitimate expectations formed at the time of investment, particularly where the host state made specific assurances.
- Lack of transparency or due process in regulatory decisions.
- Coercion and harassment by state authorities.
A key doctrinal debate is whether FET is an autonomous treaty standard (potentially broader and evolving) or is tied to the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law. NAFTA Article 1105, as interpreted by the Free Trade Commission's 2001 binding note, took the latter view; the USMCA (in force 2020) likewise anchors FET to the customary minimum standard. Many European-model BITs, by contrast, leave the clause unqualified, which earlier tribunals such as Tecmed v. Mexico (2003) and Saluka v. Czech Republic (2006) read expansively.
States have pushed back against broad readings. The EU's 2016 CETA text with Canada lists a closed set of breaches (denial of justice, fundamental breach of due process, manifest arbitrariness, targeted discrimination, abusive treatment) that constitute FET violations. The Netherlands' 2019 model BIT adopts a similar approach. This trend reflects concern that expansive FET interpretations chill legitimate regulation, especially in environmental, health, and tax policy.
Example
In Tecmed v. Mexico (2003), an ICSID tribunal found Mexico had breached the FET clause of its BIT with Spain after refusing to renew a hazardous waste landfill permit without adequate justification.
Frequently asked questions
It depends on the treaty. NAFTA and USMCA tie FET to the customary minimum standard, while many older European-style BITs leave it unqualified, allowing tribunals to interpret it more broadly.
Keep learning